You're Enjoying This Way Too Much.

Last week, I happened to catch the local news and they showed a dog whose owner had abused it, quite creatively and for a long time. As dogs will, it recovered and now has a very nice home filled with toys and treats. For a brief instant, I wanted the ability to rip someone's spleen out of their body and shove it down their throat. It was the video of the dog's tail, weakly wagging at its rescuer that drove me over the top. After all that, a dog will still trust people to make things better.

Rage, I understand. Vengeance, oh, I grok that.

This, not so much. It's a treatise on hell and hell and fiery punishment- everlasting- and I've seen it all before, until we got to this:

"Some people think that hell will only be experienced by the inner consciousness. But hell will be experienced by the body, too. Transcendent, eternal bodies are going to be given to the damned; they will suffer in those bodies forever.

Um . . . oooookaaaay. Why? Why would God, maker of heaven and earth, omnipotent and omniscient, need to give me a new "transcendent" body in order to torment me? It seems a bit, what's the word I'm looking for? Unnecessary? Sadistic? Bizarre?

Seriously, what is going on in the writer's mind that that makes sense and seems worthy of worship?

And this, regarding the degrees of hell:

"So, hell will be a place of unrelieved torment of body and soul in varying degrees. John Gerstner said, "Hell will have such severe degrees that a sinner were he able would give the whole world if his sins could be one less."

Really? After eternity? I guess that's why we have to have new, transcendent bodies, because in this current one, you can get used to anything inside of a few minutes, depending upon what it is, so I give it 1,000 years at the outside before everyone is hell is all "meh, whatever, just another day of fiery torment."

This makes no sense at all:

God never meant for hell to be for people. He made it for the devil and his angels. But people choose to go to hell by rejecting Christ. Some souls are suffering that torment right now, and have been waiting for their resurrected bodies for thousands of years. But even after they receive their transcendent bodies, they will be no closer to the end of eternal punishment than when they first entered hell. No wonder Jesus had to teach about hell!

God never meant for hell to be for people? God's omniscient, right? If he is, the above statement makes no fucking sense at all. Not one bit. If he isn't, well, that kicks the rest of your theology in the teeth. Either way, stoopid.

And, just to amuse myself, God and I talk transcendent, eternal bodies:

God: Here you go!

Me: Hey, neat, what's this?

God: That's your new, transcendent, eternal body.

Me: What does "transcendent" even mean in that context?

God: You know, tranning scendents.

Me: What?

God: Never mind, what do you think of it?

Me: Well . . . I'm a little underwhelmed, to be honest.

God: What? Why? It's transcendent, it's eternal!

Me: I was really hoping to get something better than this. This is just a human body. Like many others. Much like the one I used to have. Do you have anything in Jägermonster?

God: What?

Me: I was thinking gold, with red eyes and red hair. Maybe gold streaks in the hair. Of course, shark's teeth and long, pointed ears, and inch-long claws. That's just standard. I'd be equally satisfied either way with horns, but I'd really rather not be covered in fur.

God: Seriously?

Me: Transcendent!

Ruling with a Rod of Iron

I realized, reading this, that a lot of people in this country screaming about fascism aren't actually opposed to fascism, they just want a very specific fascist state- one led by Jesus and his rod o' iron*.

Ruling with a rod of iron. I can't wait!

Revelation 12:5 (King James Version)

"And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."

When you think about all the nations today, can you think of ONE nation that doesn't need to be "ruled with a rod of iron"? Including the U.S.? I can't. We have lost our way more than ever before.

Funny, I can't think of any countries that would benefit from theocracy/fascism/autocracy. It's really sad when Tunisians and Egyptians and Libyans are teaching Americans lessons in freedom and democracy. That was supposed to be our thing. We were so proud of it.

Come quickly Lord Jesus. I long for your rightous rule over this planet. I long for the day when the word "politician" and "dear leader" are no longer in our vocabulary. The meek shall inherit the earth and rightly so.

These people use the oddest definition of "meek" I've ever seen.

We need you Jesus. We have proven for thousands of years that without you, we are nothing but filthy rags; meaningless and good for nothing.

Speak for yourself. I am neither a filthy rag, nor meaningless, nor good for nothing. Honestly, say that sort of thing in any other context and people will be shipping you off to a therapist.

I agree with you on this one!

There'll be no more need for a press secretary, Cabinet meetings. The word "consensus" no longer needed. No more compromises made. No more presidential scandals. No criticisms directed against our King. Righteous judgment meted out immediately....no more dragged out trials. No need for LAWYERS. (no offense to any lawyers out there) Chances are you'll be just as thrilled, too!

Um, no. I just can't imagine what is supposed to be so attractive. This is an excellent description of the USSR under Stalin.

We won't have to question what our King says. Absolute Truth will reign supreme.

The list goes on and on with these wonderful thoughts....

You are scaring me.

You know, the Lost probably don't understand how we look forward to Someone reigning with a "rod of iron". Just as they don't understand how giving our lives away, surrendering our will, brings total freedom in this life. How submission truly works in marriage and in our relationship with the Lord.

No, I don't understand what is so awesome about someone reigning with a rod of iron. Nor do I understand how slavery = freedom and submission = healthy relationship. I don't think

YES!! Soooo looking forward to this time! Just imagine the peace and happiness and fullfillment you will experience knowing you are living under His authority on this planet.

Our hearts and our lives and our relationships will soar!

I'm going to send you to Egypt so you can learn all about democracy.

Can you imagine living in a place where there's no need to lock your doors - there might not even be locks! And children can play outside without parents worrying they'll be kidnapped or murdered. What a glorious day that will be!!!

No, I cannot imagine living on a planet populated by aliens.

The "rod of iron" is how God rules. It simply means that there's no compromise. God's kingdom holds the line in righteousnes and justice. If it was compromised, corruption would ensue, so the Lord isn't making any concessions.

It gives us peace knowing that He runs a kingdom where no evil dwells and that it is secure in every way.

As another has said, I'm looking forward to it.

Why can't any of these people handle spelling "righteous/ness"? So . . . the rod of iron means there will be no mercy, no sympathy, no compromise as if that were a bad thing. Scaring me, you are.

I've been watching FOX News programs (Huckabee/Judge Napolitano/John Stossel) this evening --all of them dealing with our debt crisis and unions and all--loss of our freedoms...) and have been thinking the same thing, Maranatha. Sitting in the chair, I was wondering what it will be like when our Lord governs. We know with each passing day we're getting closer.

So, loss of all our freedoms is bad until Jesus makes the loss of all our freedoms good?

IMO there will be sin in the millenium, thus the need for the 'rod of iron'. Sin will not go unpunished. Saints will serve as judges in disputes among people, and will decide these disputes on the principles and precepts of God, and nothing else. Decisions will be final, as in no endless appeals. No bribes, favorites, etc. There will be peace in nature: the lion and lamb; the child near a viper's nest, etc.
I think only the church actually receives incorruptible and immortal spiritual bodies, and in this way we will display and demonstrate the grace of God through all eternity. I just don't recall having read this particular promise in regard to OT and Trib saints, or residents of earth during the millenium.

AHA! The only reason any person supports fascism/autocracy/theocracy is because they think they will be on the winning end of things. If they thought they'd be on the whipping end of the stick, they'd fight against it with their dying breath. So, losing freedom is bad, unless you'll be the one taking away the freedom, in which case boo-yah!

Our fellow citizens, they are terrifying.

*I guarantee you that's already a porno.

Maybe We Should Work on Empathy Transplants First

Sometimes it's not the story, it's the comments. Actually, a lot of the time it's not the story, it's the comments. Your fellow countrymen and human beings baring their sociopathic souls for all the world to see is just terrifying.

The story is about transplant rationing in Arizona (it's not a death panel when it's a private insurer, apparently) and the real human cost of such decisions.

Trinity Halliday
I lost my job and have no health insurance now. So why exactly should I cry tears for people who will suck up millions and millions of dollars of healthcare and may require a second costly transplant or die anyway? A former boss of mine had a heart transplant. She told us about all of the other people in her hospital unit who mostly died anyway after the transplant. Talk about throwing money down a black hole. After the transplant there are all also all of the costly anti-rejection drugs and tests to see if you're rejecting the organ. I was in favor of transplants before I heard her stories. She alone has cost the insurance company millions and millions of dollars and doesn't even have a normal life. I'm sorry, but we really need to think about what a life is worth. And how many less sick people we could treat and save for the same money. Lots and lots. I'm with Arizona on this. It's not a good use of the money. And I'm normally a bleeding heart liberal. If I get sick or injured, I'm going to die, because I can't afford medical treatment. So if you're not Steve Jobs and can't afford a transplant, maybe you will, too. I don't think a right to transplants was ever written into the Constitution.

Yes, saving lives is "throwing money down a black hole" if those lives aren't going to be "normal" afterwards. "Bleeding heart liberal" Trinity apparently feels that medicine should only be an option if it's going to make people "normal", whatever that means, so forget about treating mental illnesses, or amputees or children with Down's Syndrome. If they're going to force Trinity to behold abnormality, they should just die.

"I don't think a right to transplants was ever written into the Constitution" is just a flat out lie: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's right there, Trin. Get a clue.

Simmons
Whatever did we do 50 years ago, when many of our life-saving procesurdes weren't available? And we didn't have a pill for everything? Even 20 years ago? Limit all public funds for healthcare that was developed 20 years ago or more.That will still give people BASIC healthcare. Everyone else can pay out of their own pockets. Some of us get Ferraris, some get 10 year old Kias. Life's unfair.

Simmons feels that medicine should have stopped innovating 50 years ago. Why 50? Who the fuck knows, but I'll be happy to deny Simmons fetal monitoring, open heart surgery, an artificial hip, treatment for heart attacks, CT scans, MRIs, PET scans, defibrillators, and the list goes on.

I mean seriously, the knowledge that [this person] is dying needlessly only inspires you to opine on Kias and spout the sort of ableist tripe Hitler was fond of? Instead of cutting off organ transplants, I say we figure out how to do empathy transplants. Apparently, that's what we really need.

This Definition of "Enemy" Concerns Me

Love your enemies- or eat them. Up to you.

Enemy: one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent

It's more than that, though, isn't it? I mean, do you, personally, feel that you have enemies? Other than abstractions, like misogyny or ablism or religion, who has enemies? I don't have enemies. I have people I dislike and people who dislike me, but I'm not even sure I actually hate anyone. Sure, there are people I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire, but hatred, enemies? No. No, I don't.

Perhaps I am unusual. Perhaps the rest of world is beset with hatred and enemies and I am the exception. Perhaps this actually makes sense:

I am sure that if you are a Christian you have either read or heard the verses above. If you are like me you might have said to yourself, “That’s really nice and all, but I could never dream of doing that!” I really need to understand in a very practical way how something even if it is in God’s word makes sense, or I find myself unable to follow it. I never even tried to love my enemies, what I did or thought I was doing is to not have any enemies. But before we can say we do or don’t have an enemy, we need to define what an enemy is.

. . .

So what is an enemy according to the Bible? Someone who persecutes you, hates you or despitefully uses you. What this statement is trying to say is that it ranges from someone who may be constantly trying to kill you to someone who simply treats you badly one time. Who treats you badly? Well a whole lot of people. The person who cuts you off while driving. The person who cuts in front of you in line. The cashier with a bad attitude. Your boss. The friend, relative or even spouse who does not have time for you and puts others before your needs. All of these are your enemies if only for a short time!

A cashier having a bad day is my enemy? My husband, when he is absorbed in recording, is my enemy? Anyone anywhere not putting my needs first is my enemy? Srsly?

That has to be the most disturbing reading of "love your enemy" I've ever seen. Leave it to a fundy to turn a Bible verse I heartily approve of into a reason to be very afraid.

This person's world is filled with endless amounts of enemies: people having bad days, people who aren't paying attention, busy people, depressed people, generally uninterested people. The majority of people he meets are enemies by that definition. It doesn't even matter how he recommends you treat your enemies, not when virtually every person he meets is a new enemy.

Actually, it does get worse. His reasoning for treating his enemies well is just as disturbing as his definition of "enemy".

The way to love your enemies is to view it as a challenge understanding there is a reward at the end. Why do people climb a mountain when it is so so hard to do. For the challenge and the reward. Now I personally don’t think in the case of the mountain that the reward justifies the action, but you can see my point. God wants what's best for us in the long term, just like our parents would. God can only reward us if we go through something. He cannot reward us just because we say we would do something like love our enemies. We have to actually do it.

You treat people well because it is the right thing to do, not because you believe you'll get a cookie at the end. That's just appalling. It's also theologically bizarre when you consider that he believes that mere belief in Jesus earns one a spot in Heaven. What, exactly, is better than Heaven? What possible reward could God provide that would make Heaven any better?

The worst part is, I'm the immoral godless one and I am left very afraid of the godly among us.